Hard to believe you can operate this facility for 135K in total salary. I assume it will be open 7 days a week for a least 12 hours a day . If so that's 84 hours a week. I also assume someone needs to be there while it is open. Hope someone bores into that

I found it very disconcerting that at about 1:48:26 in the video, in response to a question from Ms. Crawford inquiring where the language in the proposed Warrant Article came from (item #9 on the Agenda and at page 35 of the materials) Ms. Johnson replied “This came from your counsel”. I can only assume that Ms. Johnson meant the Town Counsel for Moultonborough. So now a private group has access to the Town Counsel for advice on drafting a Warrant Article? Did the Selectmen authorize such collaboration between Town Counsel and a private group? If they did, where is this documented and if they did not, is the HUB group now running the Town?

If I were to guess at what the response would be, it would be that the select board authorized at a past select board meeting, that thhe Town administrator is to be the focal point and all issues dealing with the town and The Hub activity goes through him. i would bet that the TA called the town counsel at their request.

All the stuff about RSA Chapter 33 and board authorizations is a bunch of crap to make the article look impressive. Counsel reviews the warrant, with or without petition, not to mention the NHDRA. The TA, Charlie, would have just called counsel to make it look good for them.

I think because it is a bond, they would have to.
The petitioners would need to go along with the changes in wording of the warrant.

Any petition can place a bond without anyone's approval. The wording of a petition cannot legally be changes except for very minor clerical errors. A $100,000 or more bond must be voted on first, before other non-bond articles.

If an article, especially petition artical, is "illegal" (contary to law) counsel at town meeting would state it is "unenforceable" . Sorry! No petition has to be reviewed by anyone. All the reason for a petition to be brief. Certain legal language must be adhered if specified by statute; e.g. my SB2 petition for the next MoBo town meeting. The language must be:

RSA 40:14 V. The wording of the question shall be: "Shall we adopt the provisions of RSA 40:13 (known as SB 2) to allow official ballot voting on all issues before the (local political subdivision) on the second Tuesday of (month)?


Warrant articles can be amended at town meeting as long as "intent" is not changed, nor intruction of new matter.

yes, it was well done and a typical big government proposal:
1) low ball the cost and say oops years from now
2) offer something to everyone
3) won't cost you anything
4) tax the rich


it may actually get 60% of the vote

A bond would not be ''contrary to law'' or considered unenforceable.
Dow vs Town of Effingham.

Counsel is used in matters of clarity.

I don't think "it" was well done.
A lot of town money has already been spent on trying to get "costs". Money given to private organizations.

The only thing that matters is how many voters will show up at town meeting and vote. My SB2 petition is an attempt to make it as easy as possible to get as many voters to vote. Won't help this May, although we tried via a Special town meeting petition last June/July and finally got a court ruling that ruled it needs to be done at the annual town meeting. Otherwise this May would have been SB2.

I have sent a lettter (2 pages with numbers) to the TA, select board, and The Hub proponents about the tax impact and valuations regarding the bond. Excerpts:

"Folks might try using, for example, .08 or .33 and use these numbers to figure the tax on their property ... which would be a mistake."

"That last column of numbers on the bond refer to the municipal tax rate. The municipal tax rate is only one of four rates that determine the total tax rate; namely, the sum of Municipal,County, Local Education, State Education formulate the total town tax rate."

"Additionally the town “Assessed Valuation” stays the same for the life of the bond, but will change with changes in yearly assessments. The 2021 valuation was $3,943,560,976 with a total tax rate of 6.98. The 2022 valuation was$4,892,023,118 with a total tax rate of 4.78, which is the valuation on the bond."

"To look at what the bond would have added to the 2022 tax rate, add the 2022 tax effort, $6,144,066 with each years payment listed on the bond (see above) ."

Plus a bunch of other stuff disputing the value of the .08 ,.33 etc

Who said a bond is unenforceable?
Is that difficult to comprehend?
Clarity of what and when?

Counsel cannot a stop a petition from insertion in the warrant. He/she will give guidance to the governing body before the meeting and at the meeting comment on enforceability (legality) to the legislative body ... the voters.

Dow vs Town of Effingham.
"In determining whether an ordinance is a reasonable exercise of the municipality's police powers and, therefore, can withstand a substantive due process challenge, the rational basis test is applied under which consideration is given to whether the ordinance bears a reasonable relationship to its objective and does not unduly restrict fundamental rights.

https://casetext.com/case/milton-dow...n-of-effingham

Who the hell is discussing "ordinances" ?

TO: TA, Select Board, two other participants of 2-23-23 work session

2-26-23
Hi Charlie,

By the time you read this you'll have returned from vacation. Hope you had a great vacation.
This note regards the BoS work session of 2-23-23 and possible/probable confusion by town folks regarding the discussion regarding “valuation” and “tax impacts”.

Use of the final column numbers in the 20 year bond, “FY-Est Tax Rate Inc.”are referenced and folks may think that is how they are taxed. I believe FY-Est Tax Rate Inc stands for: Fiscal Year Estimated Tax Rate Increase. Folks might try using, for example, .08 or .33 and use these numbers to figure the tax on their property … which would be a mistake.

Let me know if my calculations or premise is faulty.

That last column of numbers on the bond refer to the municipal tax rate. The municipal tax rate is only one of four rates that determine the total tax rate; namely, the sum of Municipal,County, Local Education, State Education formulate the total town tax rate. Additionally the town “Assessed Valuation” stays the same for the life of the bond, but will change with changes in yearly assessments.
The 2021 valuation was $3,943,560,976 with a total tax rate of 6.98. The 2022 valuation was $4,892,023,118 with a total tax rate of 4.78, which is the valuation on the bond. What will the town 2023 valuation be … or what will it be when/if a bond is approved … who knows. Assessments should definitely go down, but …. (one t).

Moultonborough Tax Rate Breakdown for 2022:

Jurisdiction Tax effort Valuation Tax rate (per 1,000)
Municipal $6,144,066 divided by $4,892,023,118 = 1.25
County $3,923,698 divided by $4,892,023,118 = .80
Local Education $8,588,853 divided by $4,892,023,118 1.76
State Education $4,698,493 $4,892,023,118 = .97

Total present tax rate $23,355,110 divided by $4,892,023,118 = 4.78

The bond affects the Municipal rate, not the other rates, other than total rate. Using some examples from the 20 year bond discussed at the work session:

First 5 years of the bond:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year5
FY-Est etc. .08 .33 .32 .31 .30
Year Pmt. $387,500 $1,606,188 $1,563,563 $1,520,938 $1,478,313
e.g.: $387500/$4892118 = .000079/1000 or .08 another:1,606,188/4892023118 = .000328/1000 or .33
and so on.

Not that meaningful if trying to figure out how much your tax bill will increase.






To look at what the bond would have added to the 2022 tax rate, add the 2022 tax effort, $6,144,066 with each years payment listed on the bond (see above) .
Sample
$6,144,066 + $387,500 = $6,531,566 = New Municipal Effort and so on, for each year

Bond Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year5
New Muni. Effort $6,531,566 $7,750,254 $7,707,629 $7,665,004 $7,622,379

Then,
New Municipal tax rate = Municipal tax effort divided by Valuation
sample: year 1: 6,531,566 divided by 4,892023,118 = 1.3 and so on for the other years
New Muni tax rate 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
New total tax rate 4.84 5.13 5.13 5.23 5.13

Bond years 1 2 3 4 5 … and on 20 yr.
Tax rates (present 4.78 ) 4.84 5.13 5.13 5.23 5.13
Tax for $200,000 property = $968 $1026 $1026 $1046 $1026
$300,000 property = $1452 $1539 $1539 $1569 $1539
$500,000 property = $2420 $2565 $2565 $2615 $2565
$750,000 property = $3630 $3848 $3848 $3923 $3848
$1,000,000 property = $4840 $5130 $5130 $5230 $5130
$3,000,000 property = $14,520 $15,390 $15,390 $15,690 $15,390

New total tax rate 4.84 5.13 5.13 5.23 5.13
Additional annual tax with this bond if 2022 was year of execution.
year 1 year2 year 3 year 4 year 5 (on to 20yrs.)
$200,000 property = $12 $70 $70 $90 $70
$300,000 property = $18 $105 $105 $135 $105
$500,000 property = $30 $175 $175 $225 $175
$750,000 property = $45 $263 $263 $338 $263
$1,000,000 property = $60 $350 $350 $450 $350
$3,000,000 property = $180 $1,050 $1,050 $1,350 $1,050

It should be noted that first year is interest only, no principal, and why it is much lower.

Let me know if I've gone off the deep end!


(Original format of letter separating the numbers not preserved in this website)

The petitioners do not need to request.
They can present it to the BOS with any language.

With the permission of the petitioners (which the HUB proponents are smart enough to do), the BOS can ask counsel to clean up the language for clarity.

Which is what I believe they did.

Hence the ''wording'' came from town counsel, as the presenter stated.

Another note to the town.

Here's an email I got last night and my response:
year ...payments ... payment divided by bond valuation (year of bond only)
1) $388k and .08
2) $1.6m and .33
3) $1.6m and .32
4) $1.5m and .31
5) $1.5m and .30
6) $1.4m and .29
7) $1.4m and .28
8) $1.4m and 2.8
9) $1.3m and .27
10) $1.3m and .26
11) $1.2m and .25
12) $1.2m and .24
13) $1.1m and .23
14) $1.1m and .22
15) $1.1m and .22
16) $1.0m and .21
17) $967k and .20
18) $924k and .19
19) $882k and .18
20) $839k and .17

Dollars are rounde-off

Total Fiscal year Payments: $24,412,500 for the 20 years of payments for the $15,500,000 bond.

$1.6m x 20 years = $32m not the $24m of the bond.


(I hope the formatting of this holds-up.) It didn't, so the colunm of numbers.

Glad you agree.
The wording of the article, however, is probably that of the petitioners and the TA (Charlie) and the attorney just advised that no legal issues are concerning. I happen to know all the participants, and have dealt with the attorney. The verbiage is too loquatious for a lawyer and fails to mention the pertinent statutes.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...TOC-III-33.htm

Charlie, the TA, has the list of fund's statutes that require town approval from previous town meeting acceptances.

I received this from a friend. It outlines the expected real costs for the proposed HUB Community Center over the 20 year financing period. You will note all of the numbers are exactly from the material that the HUB folks have provided, except for an estimate of the costs the HUB folks admitted will be needed but they have not included. There is also a note at the end that a modest 5% inflation of operating costs…salaries, insurances, benefits, utilities, etc. over that same 20 year period could add an extra $6-7 Million, bringing the overall cost to +/- $40 MILLION !!! Yikes !! As I learned from reading this material, the $15M bond request at Town Meeting is the tip of the cost iceberg for a facility that, in my opinion, has a questionable need. However, if it is approved, then all these numbers will flow to taxpayers annually. I have been told that lakefront properties will pay +/- 70% or more of the costs (based on assessed valuations) but only represent a very small portion of voters who may approve this project. Well worth the time to review this material.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

This Guest Commentary is the opinion of that writer. This sender email address is solely used to distribute that opinion.

Please share this information with neighbors, friends and Moultonboro voters. Town Meeting is Thursday, May 11th at 6pm.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't be blindsided by the HUB bonding request of $15.3 Million. That is in no way representative of what this project is going to cost Moultonborough taxpayers.

The project as presented could easily represent a potential increase of +/- 20% or more to the ongoing Municipal budget !


Amount Borrowed (Bond) $15.5 Million The HUB numbers

Interest Payments (20 years) $ 8.9 Million The HUB numbers
_____________

Cost to finance ONLY $24.4 Million The HUB numbers….like your home mortgage payment

Annual Operating Cost ($320,000/year) $ 6.4 Million The HUB numbers (without inflation), reduced by revenue
_____________

Total $30.8 Million

Potential Added Operating Costs ($200,000 year) $ 4.0 Million….HUB folks admitted they didn't have all costs captured.
_____________

Potential Total for 0ver 20 years $34.8 Million


With 5% added inflation of Operating costs, these numbers could realistically eclipse +/- $40 Million over the 20 year period.

The $15.3 Million bond is just the tip of the iceberg that Moultonborough taxpayers are getting obligated to, if approved.

YOU NEED THE FULL STORY !!!!

Please. Don't place data and statistics into the conversation. All just muddies the waters.

Instead of the $40 Million dollar estimate.

Take a smaller number such as the pennies added to the home tax evaluation. Folks like smaller numbers.

And no one wants to know anything about inflation. Nobody wants to know about interest for cost of money. No one want to know about the annual maintenance costs. No one wants to know about the annual labor costs.

Please keep the full story a secret !

HUB in Moultonborough
 

I have some answers but far from all the answers

You'll remember that in 2020 the Selectmen backed a total of $5.0 M consisting of $1.5 M in the "Lions Club building" to bring up to code, make ADA compliant, preserve meals-on-wheels etc.... for an additional 30 year lifetime, and then $3.5M to build a "Rec Center" with a track and basketball courts - with room to expand in the future - to be on the large Town-owned Taylor-lot near the Bank of NH.
That was when town bonds would have been at 1.3% for ten years, and we had enough cash for maybe $500,000 of it.... That's right, only $13,000 per year per Million dollars borrowed - basically the interest on $4.5M bond could have been paid by property taxes from 4 lake-front homes. There was also a warning that construction costs would go up by 7% per year (without knowing what would be hitting us for either interest rates or inflation rates as they actually did rise). Using their at-the-time numbers, that would be a 2024 value of $7.2M for the same $5.5M center + Lions Club improvements in using their numbers. The ACTUAL inflation from 2020 - 2024 I don't even want to know (shiver).

Two things got in the way in 2020. First, there was a "sect" of people who wanted much more than this proposed center and immediately rallied a number of voters to their cause, openly warred with the Selectmen, made for a sloppy town meeting with two different centers to vote on (does anyone else remember that town meeting?), and getting a majority - but not the required approval majority, of votes for the $5.5M selectmen plan. The other issue was some history-huggers trying to protect the Taylor property and rallying against the Rec Center on that lot. As it turns out the Selectmen took a wrecking ball to that house to solve that issue going-forward.

No, you can't have a regulation water polo or a regulation swimming competition in a 25 yard pool that is only 5 lanes, so any imaginings that there could be some revenue from that pool is folly.

I think in the end, getting something that could be expanded later - something that most townspeople would likely have compromised on - was replaced by the "i want everything - NOW" mentality.

As usual, we only hurt ourselves. The time came, and the time went. And what did we learn - to go for the I WANT EVERYTHING option again...

What happened to Yankee common sense?

Kevin, Jim and Karel did the right thing for the Town by declining to put the HUB proposal on the Warrant as sponsored by the Town.

For Ms. Johnson and Mr. Borrin to assert that the HUB proposal is not the product of a “special interest group” is laughable. Just look at all of the prior failed proposals to see at who is truly behind this push for a Taj Mahal in our Town. For example, see the post above by Cal To NH.

Kevin exercised more restraint that I would have been capable of in light of the repeated personal attacks, insults and aggressive behavior by Mr. Borrin.

The HUB proponents have a long history of trying to force the Town and its taxpayers to fund this monstrosity and their duplicitous public relations efforts clearly show that they will stop at nothing in their efforts. We need a strong turn out at Town Meeting to vote overwhelmingly NO.

Votes and Presentation HUB
 

On March 2 the official vote by selectmen was to not put it on the Town Meeting. This is pretty much meaningless as this group has shown in the past that they can easily get a petition to add it anyway....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Request to put on warrant “The Hub”: This request was brought forward at the 02/23/23 Work Session. Mr. Mark Borin spoke on this request to put on the warrant article for the 2023 annual town meeting (versus a petition warrant article). The Board of Selectmen each discussed their concerns. Lengthy discussion ensued and
the Chair called for the vote.
Motion: Chair Quinlan
To deny the request to put “The Hub” on the warrant article.
Seconded: Selectman Crawford
Vote: 3 (Gray, Quinlan, Crawford) - 2 (Colby, Beadle)
Motion passed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's also interesting that if you look at the minutes of the 2/23 Selectmen's meeting, the presentation given for the HUB project was supposed to be uploaded to the town site under "major projects", but never was. Too bad, because those of us unable to be at each Selectmen's meeting would surely have loved to see it. -

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Borrin & Mrs. Johnson have requested that the Board of Selectmen take a vote at their 03/02/23 regular meeting to add an article for the Community Center to the May 2023 Warrant along with their unanimous support.
The Board thanked Mr. Borrin and Mrs. Johnson for all the work that they have put into this and for the detailed presentation. The Board will post tonight’s presentation/information on the town website under “Major Projects” along with the meeting video from tonight’s presentation on the website under “Town Hall Streams”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cal:

I believe it was uploaded. See:

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...s_02.23.23.pdf

the meaning of the vote was that the selectmen don't approve. Yes it will be presented as an article i assume by petition.

Statutorily, April 4th is deadline for the petition, that only requires 25 registered voters.

Well this is not unexpected but nevertheless not good news. Borrin is running for the Moultonborough Selectboard. There are two seats up for grabs. Kevin Quinlan’s and Jim Gray’s. I have heard that Kevin is going to run and that Jim Gray may not run.

I believe that is correct.

Chuck McGee will be running again.

maybe he would recluse himself ha ha ha

Interesting news on the upcoming Selectman election! Thanks for that. Also, thanks for the presentation! Borrin, unfortunately, was not a great choice by the selectmen to be the HUB guy. At the meeting I went to early in the process, he came-off as so unlikable. He certainly thinks a lot about himself, however. He's not a bad guy, just all ego.
Although I can swim and played water polo as a kid, I was never good enough to make either the swim team or water polo team at my very large high school. In college I was a swim official and officiated some high school swim meets, as the cash was good. I say all this because I told Borrin 2 years ago that a regulation pool for both water polo and swim meets is a 25 yard pool with 6 lanes. A 5 lane pool will never be used for either purpose. I see in the presentation they are still saying that revenue could be made by competitions. He's right that the money from these things is quite good, but he's selling a "bill-of-goods" to people who don't know better. It may be a small thing, but the killer for me is that he knows it's not true, and so you know what that makes him.... For me, at least, it makes me wonder what else is - shall we say - embellished...

Here is the Warrant Article filed yesterday with the Town by the Taj Mahal group. It is up by $400,000 over their earlier version.

Maybe if they lose this time they will quit

LTE re your post
 

It would be most helpful to our cause if you would write a letter to the editor of the Meredith News and the Laconia Daily sun, citing the information in your post. So many Moultonborough residents get their news from these papers, and we must get everything we can to convince voters to nix this insane project. I am not at all surprised that the instigators have been suppressing the true facts and figures….it’s really a disgrace. Anyhow, if you could manage that, and we all get everyone with financial interest in this to come to the meeting on May 11 at 6.
Thanks.
Sue

BOS voted tonight 2...Yes, 3.... NO for the Petitioned Warrant article on the HUB.

Hopefully the finance committee does the same

Finance Committee is advisory only and their opinion on this is not based on ANY review of information. In my opinion, not important at all.

Letter in Laconia Daily Sun
 

The Letter quotes the proposed warrant article -

“The space is designed for group meetings, private functions such as weddings, birthday parties, bridal or baby showers, business lunches/dinners and gatherings of all sizes, making it Moultonborough’s best location for functions.”

Should the town be competing with tax paying private businesses in town by doing weddings? Have we looked into the demand for such events? Also, would all activities be closed on days that weddings/events are going on? Lastly, in the unique labor market, would The Hub be able to staff its facilities?

If the people proposing this really think this is viable, why don't they build a facility and run it themselves?

i guess unless you can get someone else to pay for it

They already are...over 70% of taxes come from lakefront properties and the majority cannot vote. So the 'residents" vote for a want and they pass the bill on to those who have no say.

So change residency.

SB2 would allow ALL interested voters to vote . . . at their leisure . . . on voting day.

Not some long out drawn out meeting where every nutcase can take up time babbling about this or that.

SB2 Offical Ballot Referenda vs. Traditional Meeting
Pros and Cons

FOR SB2:

SB2: A Month To Research Warrant Article Discussions Before Voting. Traditional Requires Immediate Vote, Then and There.

SB2: All Warrant Articles Are Voted On Tuesday Ballot. All Day Voting. In And Out. Not Hours Waiting to Finish Voting, and Bored.

SB2: Absentee Ballots Would Now Include All Warrant Articles. Snowbirds, Military, and Other Absentees Can Vote On All Warrant Articles.

SB2: All Voting Is Secret, In Curtained Voting Booth. Traditional Hand Or Card Votes, Intimidate Some Voters.

SB2 No, Voter "Reconsideration" Shenanigans.

AGAINST SB2:

Fewer Attendees At SB2 Deliberative Session
There Should Be! Many Folks Already Know How They Will Vote.

Traditional Meeting Allows For More of a Social Event. No, It Doesn't. SB2 Deliberative Session Can Also Be a Social Event, Same as Traditional.

SB2 Does Not Allow Debate of Warrant Articles. Not true! Yes, It Does, At The Deliberative Session. Same As Traditional.

SB2 Does Not Allow Amendments to Warrant Articles. Not true! Yes, It Does, At The Deliberative Session. Same As Traditional.

SB2 Jeopardizes The Budget. Traditional Town Meeting Imperils The Budget More. SB2 Also Has a Default Budget.

Nice to see a lot of “ scrub the hub signs” around town

If you own property and pay taxes in the Town you should be able to vote on how that money is spent. This Town's mentality is to spend other people's money. This is not the time, and perhaps never, to consider a project of this magnitude for a town of the size of Moultonboro regardless of who is paying for it. The HUB proponents have a lot of nerve to continue to put the Town through this every year. Enough already !

Fairy tale ending for HUB
 

I agree with you…..and my happy ending for this, though unrealistic and improbable, would be that all the nonresident lakefront property owners banded together and declared their Moultonborough property their primary residence, and voted down the HUB! It’s a fantasy, but a truly delicious one.